Publication

The fight against kidnapping is one that every responsible citizen must support. Kidnapping has become one of the most disturbing crimes in our society, and the Ondo State Anti-Kidnapping and Anti-Abduction Law, 2010, was enacted to ensure that not only abductors but also those who facilitate the crime are brought to justice.


Section 8 of the Law provides:

"Any person who kidnaps or does any act relating to kidnapping or threatens to kill, maim or injure or cause panic in order to compel another person or corporate body or governmental organization to do or abstain from committing any act as a condition for the release of the person taken, kidnapped, abducted or seized commits an offense and shall be liable on conviction to life imprisonment without an option of fine."


There is no doubt that the legislature deliberately used the phrase "does any act relating to kidnapping" to widen criminal liability beyond the person who physically abducts the victim. The provision rightly covers those who knowingly finance, facilitate, provide logistics, negotiate ransom, or otherwise participate in a kidnapping enterprise.


My concern, however, is not with the law itself but with an emerging prosecutorial practice that I have observed in criminal litigation before the courts in Ondo State.

Increasingly, suspects are arraigned on charges merely alleging that they committed "acts relating to kidnapping," without stating what specific act they allegedly committed. More troubling is that such vague charges are often accompanied by applications seeking orders of remand, again without disclosing the factual conduct said to constitute the offense.


This practice should concern every lawyer and every judicial officer.

The phrase "acts relating to kidnapping" is a legal conclusion; it is not a statement of fact. Every act must relate to an identifiable kidnapping, attempted kidnapping, or intended kidnapping. A charge that merely repeats the words of Section 8 without identifying the alleged act or the kidnapping enterprise leaves the accused guessing about the case he is expected to defend.


That is inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of a fair hearing.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed this principle in Amanchukwu v. FRN (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1029), where it held that an accused person who does not know or understand the nature of the offence with which he is charged cannot be said to have enjoyed a fair trial. Likewise, in (2020) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1755) 157, the Supreme Court held that although not every omission in a charge is fatal, an omission becomes material where it fails to put the accused on proper and sufficient notice of the case against him, thereby impairing his ability to prepare his defense.


The human rights implications of vague charges are profound. Liberty is curtailed through remand proceedings on undefined allegations. The accused is denied meaningful notice of the case against him, counsel is left to speculate as to the factual basis of the allegation, and the Court is invited to exercise its coercive powers without sufficient particulars. This creates a dangerous risk that suspicion, association, or mere presence may be mistaken for criminal participation.


The constitutional presumption of innocence requires more. Investigation should precede prosecution, not the other way around. A citizen should not be charged or remanded merely because investigators suspect involvement. The prosecution must first identify the specific act attributed to the accused and demonstrate its nexus to an identifiable kidnapping enterprise.


Our courts also have a critical role to play. Before granting remand applications founded on Section 8, judicial officers should insist on sufficient particulars disclosing the alleged act and its connection to the kidnapping in question. This will not weaken the fight against kidnapping; rather, it will strengthen public confidence in the administration of criminal justice.


The fight against kidnapping must be uncompromising, but so too must our commitment to the Constitution. Section 8 was enacted to punish genuine participants in kidnapping operations, not to provide a broad statutory label under which citizens may be charged and remanded without clear, identifiable allegations. Precision in criminal pleading is not a technicality; it is a constitutional safeguard. In the pursuit of justice, we must ensure that the guilty are convicted on evidence, while the innocent are protected by due process.


That is the true essence of the rule of law.